Civ Pro Flashcards
Personal Jurisdiction
- State must have a LONG ARM statute authorizing jxn
- Must be CONSTITUTIONAL (minimum contacts); defendant must have PURPOSEFUL CONTACTS with the forum state such that it would be FAIR and reasonable to exercise personal jurisdiction over him.
- Defendant took actions that were purposely directed toward the forum state and from which the defendant derived the benefits and protections of the state’s laws.
SPECIFIC: for the complained-of cause of action; close connection between the plaintiff’s CAUSE OF ACTION and the CONTACT. Are the contacts related to the action? Did defendant do anything to put their product in state?
- FAIRNESS: must not offend “traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Consider
GENERAL: all causes of action; defendant must be “AT HOME,” essentially domiciled in the state.
- Burden on the defendant in terms of convenience in defending the action; will not prevail unless the burden to the defendant is “so gravely difficult and inconvenient that a party is unfairly put at a severe disadvantage in comparison to his opponent.”
Venue
Federal venue in civil actions is proper in:
1. The DISTRICT where any DEFENDANT resides, IF ALL defendants are RESIDENTS of the STATE in which the district is located; A business-type entity resides in any district where it is subject to PJ.
2. District in which a substantial part of the events or omissions GIVING RISE to the claim occurred.
[Could be both!]
3. Fallback, anywhere where D is subject to PJ
Attorney Work Product Doctrine
Created by an attorney in anticipation of litigation. Protects documents prepared by PARTY / REPRESENTATIVE, e.g. acting as an agent of the attorney.
- QUALIFIED immunity from discovery
- Opposing party must show substantial need, cannot obtain the same materials without undue hardship, e.g., dead witness, materials taking shortly after the incident, “fresh” sources that cannot be recreated
“In anticipation of litigation” Litigation must be imminent, not theoretical
- Has a case been filed?
- Has litigation been threatened?
- Were attorney impressions / trial strategy included in the materials?
Claim preclusion
Generally, a claimant is REQUIRED to assert all CAUSES OF ACTION arising out of the SAME TRANSACTION OR OCCURRENCE that is the subject matter of the claim
- Once there is final judgment on the merits of plaintiff’s claim, which cannot assert any other claims relating to the same FACTS in a subsequent suit against the same defendant.
Aka res judicata. For claim preclusion to apply -
- The earlier judgment must be a valid, FINAL judgment on the MERITS
- Lack of prosecution (sometimes, unless court says otherwise) - The cases must be brought by the SAME claimant against the same defendant
- In same POSITIONS! - The same CAUSE OF ACTION must be involved in the later suit- Claim preclusion does not bar a claim by an opposing party! That’s a counterclaim.
* BAR: When the plaintiff LOSES the earlier case, claim preclusion “bars” further litigation
* MERGE: When the plaintiff WINS the earlier case, the different theories “merge” to prevent further litigation
** Constitutional Notice
Due process requires that the method of giving notice must have a REASONABLE prospect of giving ACTUAL notice.
- Posting of notice is insufficient to notify persons whose names and addresses are known. These persons must be notified at least by ordinary MAIL.
Discoverability of expert materials
- Draft reports and draft disclosures of “trial” experts are work product, not discoverable
- Confidential communications between such experts and counsel for the party are also generally protected under the work product doctrine, except for communications relating to the expert’s compensation or to facts or data the attorney provided to the expert.
- ID’s of experts expected to be used at TRIAL is discoverable
Discovery disclosures that need not be requested, must be disclosed
Initial disclosures
- Names of INDIVIDUALS likely to have discoverable information, even if they won’t be used at trial, and the subject of that information.
- Unless use would be solely for impeachment - Copies or descriptions of DOCUMENTS, ESI, tangible things that are in the disclosing party’s POSSESSION or control and that the disclosing party may use to SUPPORT its claims or defenses
- Unless use would be solely for impeachment
- Must only produce documents relevant to its OWN claims or defenses
- It does not matter who wrote the document, etc. - Existence of an INSURANCE policy if the insurer may be liable for the judgment.
- No need to show RELEVANCE to the claims and defenses of the parties / that the discovery of insurance coverage would lead to other admissible evidence - Computation of DAMAGES, materials supporting it
Diversity jurisdiction
For diversity of citizenship jurisdiction to be proper, there must be complete diversity of citizenship
- Complete diversity: each plaintiff must be of diverse state citizenship of every defendant when the suit is FILED
** Effect of JMOL / Motion for a New Trial
** IF doesn’t file RJMOL, prevents the appellate court from entering judgment. Can still do new trial, though
To preserve the issue of sufficiency of the evidence, the complaining party must either object at trial by filing a motion for judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”)—which then must be RENEWED post-trial in order for the appellate court to enter judgment based on the evidence—and/or file a motion for a new trial.
- Ideally, both are filed to enable the appellate court to grant the appropriate relief.
. However, by moving for a new trial, the food company preserved the issue of sufficiency of the evidence, although it will only be able to get a new trial. (A) and (B) are incorrect because the food company failed to renew the JMOL motion, thus preventing the appellate court from entering judgment for it on appeal. (B) and (D) are incorrect because the food company properly preserved the new trial motion based on the sufficiency of the evidence.
The Erie Doctrine
Under the Erie doctrine, when a state law-based claim is brought in federal court based on DIVERSITY of citizenship, the federal court generally applies the substantive law of the state in which it is sitting.
- However, where a specific federal statute or the FRCP are on point, the federal court must apply federal procedural law as long as the federal rule is valid, i.e., Under the Rules Enabling Act, a Federal Rule is valid if it deals with “practice or procedure” and does not “abridge, enlarge, or modify” a substantive right.
- If there is no federal procedure law on point, and it is unclear whether the state matter is substantive or procedural, use
1. The “outcome determination” test: an issue is substantive if it substantially affects the outcome of the case; or
2. The “balance of interests” test: the federal court is to weigh whether the state or federal judicial system has the greater interest in having its rule applied
Procedural rules:
- Requirements for a jury verdict
Erie Doctrine Approach
- ON POINT: is there some federal law (including the FRCP) that is so on point that it conflicts with state law?
- If YES: apply the FEDERAL law, as long as it is VALID (Supremacy Clause) - NOT ON POINT: if there is no federal law on point, the federal judge must apply STATE law if the issue to be decided is SUBSTANITIVE. Always apply the state law on -
i. Conflict of law rules / choice of law
ii. Elements of a claim / defense
iii. SOL
iv. Tolling SOL
v. Standard for granting a new trial - NOT ON POINT AND NOT CLEARLY SUBSTANTIVE: if there is no federal law on point and the issue is not one of the 5 listed above, the federal judge must determine whether the issue is “substantive”
- Outcome determinative
- Balance of interests (state v. federal system)
- Avoid forum shopping
Even if the requirements for diversity jurisdiction are met, which cases will the federal court nonetheless refuse to hear?
Generally, federal courts will not take jurisdiction over actions involving the ISSUANCE of
- A divorce decree
- Alimony
- Child custody
Very narrow exception, case must actually be about issuance
Federal Question Jxn
Claim must ARISE OUT OF Federal Law, i.e., the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the US
Federal law creates RIGHT to recover.
- How is Federal law coming into the case? If just defense, insufficient
- Cannot merely implicate federal issues.
** Forum Defendant Rule
This is the “forum defendant rule,” which has been understood to prevent a home-state defendant from removing to federal court based solely on diversity.
** Forum Non Conveniens
Federal courts typically will transfer (rather than dismiss) a case for convenience reasons under 28 U.S.C. section 1404 when the more convenient forum lies in another federal judicial district.
- A dismissal based on forum non conveniens usually is used when the federal court cannot transfer the action, such as when the more convenient forum is in a foreign country.
Grounds for obtaining relief from judgment
Left to the trial judge’s discretion, and, on appeal, her decision will be reviewed on an “abuse of discretion” standard.
Made within a reasonable time not to exceed ONE YEAR
- Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect
- Newly discovered evidence that by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial
- Fraud, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an adverse party
Made within a reasonable time, NO TIME LIMIT
- Judgment is void
- Judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged; a prior judgment on which it is based has been reversed or otherwise vacated; or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application
- Any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment
ANY time
- Correcting clerical mistakes
** Is a PJ ruling appealable?
(A) is correct. With certain exceptions by rule or statute, only final judgments may be appealed. A final judgment is one that disposes of the whole case on its merits. Since the case was still pending after the denial of a motion to dismiss on the basis of a lack of personal jurisdiction, the judgment here was not a final judgment and thus was not appealable. (B) is incorrect because an order determining personal jurisdiction may be appealed (and is not within the sole discretion of the district court), but the order must be “final” (that is, it must dispose of all claims by all parties). (C) is an incorrect statement of law and the final order rule. The order must be “final” at the trial court level, not be potentially made final by an appellate court ruling. (D) again is an incorrect statement of law. The final order rule may not be circumvented by the mere raising of a constitutional issue.
Issue preclusion
Aka collateral estoppel, a judgment binds the plaintiff or defendant (or their privies) in subsequent actions on different causes of action between them (or their privies) as to issues -
- Actually LITIGATED and
- ESSENTIAL to the judgment in the first action.
- Issues in both actions must be the same
- Final judgment on that issue
- the party against whom it is being invoked must have had fair opportunity to be heard
- posture of the case must be such that it would not be unfair or inequitable to apply collateral estoppel
- The issue is deemed established in the second case without need to proffer evidence on it
Traditional “mutuality” rule: only someone who was a party (or in privity with a party) in the previous case can use issue preclusion.
- Requirement is not imposed by due process and has been subject to modification in certain circumstances to allow nonparties to take advantage of a prior judgment.
Offensive issue preclusion: courts have been very reluctant to permit a NONPARTY to USE issue preclusion to aid him offensively (as a plaintiff) to obtain relief, but the Supreme Court has upheld its use offensively by a nonparty where it was fair and equitable to do so
** Juror misconduct
New trial may be granted because of serious error during trial, inclduing jury misconduct under some circumstances
** Motion to strike insufficient defense / redundancies
(D) is correct. Before responding to a pleading or, if no responsive pleading is permitted, within 21 days after service of the pleading, a party may move to have stricken any insufficient defense, or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter. Since the prior lawsuit is irrelevant to the current lawsuit, the purchaser should move to strike the defense. (A) is incorrect. A denial of the defense would be treating the defense as valid. It would leave the defense pending for trial, and evidence about the prior lawsuit in theory could be introduced. It is far better to have the defense stricken prior to trial, as it saves time at trial and prevents the jury from potentially hearing any facts about the prior lawsuit. (B) is incorrect. There is no indication that the seller knew the defense to be a sham, so it is unlikely that the court would impose any other sanction outside of striking the pleading. Absent any evidence of a Rule 11 violation, the matter may be best handled in a more direct manner by moving to strike the pleading. (C) is incorrect. If the lawsuit is irrelevant to the current proceedings, the purchaser should not add allegations about the differences between the two suits. Again, this strategy would be treating the defense as valid, which should not be the purchaser’s strategy.
** New Trial
May be granted because of a serious error during trial
Standard: jury verdict is against the weight of the evidence
- Judge cannot replace jury’s finding with own absent some serious error
- Jury verdict is not overturned lightly
** Recognizing a preclusive judgment
Generally speaking, when dealing with the preclusive effect of a judgment, the recognizing court should not give a judgment any greater effect than the rendering state would, i.e., the law of the rendering state generally controls the preclusive effect of the judgment
- When “case one” has been decided in state court, the court in case two generally will apply the claim or issue preclusion of the jurisdiction that decided case one
Removal
Under 28 U.S.C. section 1441, a DEFENDANT may remove an action that could have originally been brought in the federal courts.
- The federal judge does not have the discretion to decline removal
Required disclosures
All information then reasonably available that is not privileged and not work product
- Initial disclosures
- Expert testimony
- Pre-trial disclosures
** Requirements for a valid jury decision
In federal civil cases, a verdict must be unanimous unless the parties agree to the contrary.
- The jury must begin with at least six and not more than 12 jurors, and the parties may stipulate that the verdict may be returned without unanimity and that a jury verdict of fewer than six persons is acceptable
** RJMOL
JMOL must be made during trial: jury does not have legally sufficient basis for verdict
- Viewed in the light most favorable to the moving party
Grounds limited to what was made in the JMOL
Must be made within 28 days of judgment
Scope of discovery
- RELEVANT and PROPORTIONAL
- Not PRIVILEGED
- Not WORK-PRODUCT
Discovery may be had of any non-privileged matter that is relevant to any party’s claim or defense, as long as the information being sought can reasonably lead to admissible evidence.
Court will also consider
- Costs of discovery
- Needs of case
Service of process on a foreign corporation
Service on a foreign corp may be made
- In accordance with international treaty
- In accordance with the foreign country’s laws
- as the foreign authority directs in a response letter for guidance
- by having the clerk of court mail process to the defendant
- by any other means not prohibited by international agreement
Service of process on an individual under the FRCP
Service of process can be made by -
- Personal service
- Service left at the defendant’s usual place of abode with one of suitable age and discretion residing therein
- Service upon an authorized agent of the defendant
* Alternatively, service may be made under state rules or by mail under the waiver of service provision of Rule 4(d).
Service of process under state law
Under FRCP, summons and complaint may be served on an individual other than an infant or incompetent pursuant to the STATE LAW in which the district court is located.
- The state provision must be constitutional; i.e., it must be reasonably calculated to give the defendant notice of the action (also Constitutional)
Standard for summary judgment
Summary judgment may be granted if, from the pleadings, affidavits, and discovery materials, it appears that there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- Genuinely disputed material fact: a dispute backed by ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE on BOTH sides of the issue
- Do not weigh credibility of witnesses
- Evidence must go to the RELEVANT ISSUE
** A party asserting that a fact is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by citing particular PARTS of the record, including affidavits or declarations, stipulations, or discovery materials.
- Cannot simply rely on the complaint allegations
- If he cannot do so, Rule 56(d) authorizes him to ask the court to defer action or deny the summary judgment motion to allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take discovery
Supplemental Jurisdiction
When the federal court HAS SMJ over one claim, it has DISCRETION to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over RELATED CLAIMS that derive from the SAME COMMON NUCLEUS OF OPERATIVE FACT (same event gave rise to claims) and are such that a plaintiff would ORDINARILY be expected to try them in a single judicial proceeding.
- A co-plaintiff with a below-limit claim generally can use supplemental jurisdiction to have his claim heard so long as does not destroy complete diversity
- Cannot be used to overcome incomplete diversity
- Claims by a PLAINTIFF against an impleaded party may not use supplemental jurisdiction to circumvent the diversity statute. May need FQ!
- Supplemental jurisdiction is available to DEFENDANT against a third-party defendant / cross-claim
** Restrictions on the use of supplemental jurisdiction apply to plaintiffs only
Supplemental jurisdiction in a diversity case
In diversity cases, claims by PLAINTIFFS generally cannot invoke supplemental jurisdiction UNLESS there are MULTIPLE plaintiffs and the claim by ONE does not meet the AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY requirement
- Defendants can invoke!
Supplemental Jxn Over Joined Party
* The supplemental jurisdiction statute specifically prohibits the use of supplemental jurisdiction by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule 19. It is also contrary to Rule 19(b), which provides for an analysis of what a court should do if there is a Rule 19(a) party who cannot be joined because of jurisdiction. (A) is incorrect.
** Length of a Temporary Restraining Order
A TRO is valid for 14 days, unless the TRO is extended for good cause for a like period.
- If an extension goes beyond the “like period,” courts have held that the TRO is effectively converted into a preliminary injunction and thus becomes immediately appealable under the statute
Two dismissal rule
A dismissal by notice is without prejudice unless the plaintiff has previously dismissed any action on the same claim, in which case the dismissal by notice is with prejudice.
- The second dismissal is an adjudication on the MERITS
Voluntary Dismissal
- If the defendant has NOT answered or filed a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff may dismiss her case by filing a notice of dismissal
- Otherwise, the court has discretion to grant dismissal on such terms and conditions as the court deems proper. The dismissal is without prejudice unless the court specifies otherwise.
- If there is a counterclaim pending in the action, there can be no dismissal over the defendant’s objection unless the counterclaim remains pending.
Waiver of Venue
Defendant may waive proper venue.
1 year
Outer time limit for removal based on diversity
14 days
- Expiration of TRO
- Time to file jury demand after last pleading directed to the jury triable issue is served
- Time to appeal denial of class certification / denial of class certification
21 days
- Time after service of complaint to answer or file a Rule 12 motion
- Time to amend pleading once, as a matter of course, after its service or after responsive pleading or motion is served
- Time to withdraw pleading after a Rule 11 motion is served
28 days
- Time after a judgment to file an RJMOL
- Time after a judgment to file a motion for a new trial
30 days
- Time for initial removal
- Time for remand
- Time to return request to waive SOP (add 30 days outside of US)
- Time for appeals
60 days
Time to answer the complaint or file a 12(b) motion if defendant WAIVED SOP (add 30 days if outside of US)
90 days
General time limit for SOP
Aggregation of Claims
- SINGLE plaintiff may aggregate all his claims that he has against a SINGLE defendant
- Claims do NOT have to be related in any way! Permitted regardless of whether the claims are legally or factually related to each other - MULTIPLE plaintiffs are trying to enforce SINGLE right in which they have a COMMON, UNDIVIDED interest
- Must be allowed by state law (Erie)
Amending the complaint to substitute a defendant
Amendments to complaints substituting a NEW defendant ARE allowed and the amendment will RELATE BACK to the complaint IF
- Claims in the amendment arise from the SAME TRANSACTION/OCCURRENCE
- Within 90 days from filing, the NEW defendant received NOTICE of the action
- But for mistake, Defendant knew/should have known that the action would have been against them
- Amending party need not show reasonable care in the naming of the defendant; must find the error within the time period for serving process.
Amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction
The amount in controversy must exceed $75,000 based on plaintiff’s GOOD FAITH claim
MORE than $75k, i.e., at least $75,000.01.
- Can consider punitive damages